You can't swing a dead cat without hitting bogus objections that the religious are supposed to honor in favor of a theology that they don't actually have based on facts that don't exactly exist. Mau mauing poorly catechized people into endangering their health unnecessarily is not ok.
Yet every time we stray out of the capitalist camp (broadly defined) we later on figure out that the gains are illusory, usually a matter of robbing Peter (quietly) to pay Paul (loudly). Privatizing the global commons is possible and has been done in pieces. Why are S African elephant herds booming (they are privatized) while surrounding countries have major poaching problems?
I concede that until one figures out a decent privatization scheme, some regulation is better than an unregulated commons but that's about it.
Henry George was a capitalist in general. In the Wikipedia article on Georgism, for instance, there is a predecessor list of authors espousing similar ideals. Adam Smith is on the list.
I've no problems with experimenting with various forms of capitalism.
Just because you're a christian doesn't mean you aren't going to Hell. The majority position is that one has to be in a state of grace. Furthermore, ignorance is something of an excuse. A christian who has been catechized and still sins is generally considered to be judged more harshly than a non christian ignorant of God's rules. This is also why Jews do not condemn gentiles for eating pork and muslims do not condemn christians for not doing muslim ablutions.
The only problem with that construction is that the subset of the strong can always calve off and prey on the weak, excluding them from their society. Universal ideas like we're all children of God militate against that sort of thing, though obviously not perfectly.
People have been bleating about market externalities for at least 150 years but when the rubber hits the road, all the alternatives are even worse at dealing with externalities. Compare pollution in the Soviet block with the West and the Sovs were clearly much dirtier.
It isn't that capitalism is perfect. It's not, which is why I'm open to alternatives. The problem is that people want to tear down capitalism and not discuss much that the alternatives they are pushing are even worse. That's just a no-go and dishonest to boot.
You may want to keep an eye out for this temperature station monitoring project. Over the next decade they're going to actually do the first world-wide check on urban heat island bias. They're about halfway done with the USA and going international after that effort is complete.
There isn't just problems with one data set, but multiple ones.
The cure isn't to make massive adjustments of dubious efficacy (ie Kyoto). The cure is to create cheap orbital space flight and install a freaking planetary thermostat so that you can influence the raw input (solar radiation reaching the Earth) enough to stabilize temperature no matter how the climate is changing.
That means a planetary shade for when it's warm and mirrors for when it's cold. It's orbital megalithic architecture.
That's ok, most of the climatologists aren't accounting for them either.
The IPCC puts out reports every four years. 5 months ago we found an entire new ocean current important (among other things) in predicting global climate over time, the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation. That means that all the previous IPCC reports that everybody's got their panties in a bunch over were missing a major factor in their models. Oops. Believe me, it's not the only one.
The models to this point are GIGO and we're supposed to move trillions in resources around on their say so. That's just insane. It's phrenology on a massive scale.
The question isn't whether CO2 causes warming in isolation and never has been. The question is whether increased CO2 causes warming in a complex system where we just plain don't know what all the feedback loops are doing and how they adjust to increased CO2.
If, in the end, the increased wealth that CO2 emissions bring you allows you to clean up practices that are polluting and you save more lives than global warming costs, the emissions are worth it even if the most dire of global warming predictions are true.
There is a great deal of improvement of ecological stress that could be done but we're just not wealthy enough to do it or the areas that are stressed are under political control of such corruption that any money going in mostly gets thrown into foreign secret bank accounts instead of actually improving things. There's nothing technical that stops african agriculture from getting US style yields but they don't because the money isn't there. There's nothing technical stopping the provision of clean water anywhere in the planet. It's just too expensive for our current wealth level.
Growing rich is the only cure for ecological stress absent dictatorial control over reproduction and population reduction at genocidal levels.
Funny enough about global temperatures, if you shorten the baseline up to only 10 years, we're actually undergoing a mild bout of global cooling. The last year or two have been especially cool.
Actually, that 'make-believe system' is intended and generally functions quite well if left alone (*CRA* cough) at allocating resources on a more efficient basis than every other system we've ever tried. Inefficient allocation of resources means increased poverty, and at the margin, increased death from same. For us middle-class first worlders a tick up or down isn't a big deal but getting out of grinding subsistence agriculture and moving up the ladder to a merely crappy factory job means the difference between losing one sibling or three in the 3rd world.
Legal rights, ultimately, are based on force. They have no moral position beyond enforcement by the local government. If you agree that all human rights are legal rights than you have zero basis for an international human rights movement where there is no agreement on sharing any sort of legal polity.
Natural rights theorists do not claim to create natural rights, but rather to observe and categorize them. Such rights then have a different moral status than 'you can turn right on red but only after stopping' which is a legal right in many jurisdictions.
I'm reasonably sure that pluripotency in embryonic stem cells is natural. You don't need to induce it in embryonic stem cells. In fact, the major problem with embryonic stem cells is that they're too plastic, which is where the cancer problem comes in and why these cells are generally worthless for actual treatments.
A science embargo like you mention is extremely rare. In fact, the only one I'm aware of is of the Nazi hypothermia experiments. It's not Godwin if the mention is over a unique event that only happened to with regard to something nazi.
The cameras are an obvious place for "my dick is bigger than yours" competition. The resolution will come up in time and so the internal bar code schemes will eventually be resolvable. Smart programmers will set their software up so that adding schemes will be easy and require minimal recoding. Your point on reusing internal numbers is more difficult to overcome.
Eventually, those who make their stores more of a pain than necessary will lose business and ultimately become a problem that solves itself.
So now we've got to have a clean room, reverse engineering process before we're allowed to modify our own cells to treat disease? Do you really want to treat embryonic papers like Nazi science experiments? That's the only modern example of a science embargo like the one you're describing.
Yes, yes, the Pope is not the leader of all christians. We get that. However, in this case, the Pope is adopting the consensus pro-life position. On this issue the protestant reformation shouldn't be a problem.
It's not only the Pope but all of the pro-life religious leadership that's adopted a similar approach. I don't know of one religious faction that fights against adult stem cell research.
I think I'd rather have the steps up front with adult cells from my own body than anti-rejection medication and chemotherapy on the back end, thank you very much.
Yeah, except all the theologians have already combed through this material and have already ruled in obscure little theological journals that it's not a problem. You're late to the party.
The real fight has between the adult stem cell people and the embryonic stem cell people over how to divvy up the stem cell money. All of those "neanderthals" in the pro-life community that got slapped with the anti-stem cell label were always for adult stem cell research. They just didn't like embryonic research.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't swing a dead cat without hitting bogus objections that the religious are supposed to honor in favor of a theology that they don't actually have based on facts that don't exactly exist. Mau mauing poorly catechized people into endangering their health unnecessarily is not ok.
Yet every time we stray out of the capitalist camp (broadly defined) we later on figure out that the gains are illusory, usually a matter of robbing Peter (quietly) to pay Paul (loudly). Privatizing the global commons is possible and has been done in pieces. Why are S African elephant herds booming (they are privatized) while surrounding countries have major poaching problems?
I concede that until one figures out a decent privatization scheme, some regulation is better than an unregulated commons but that's about it.
Henry George was a capitalist in general. In the Wikipedia article on Georgism, for instance, there is a predecessor list of authors espousing similar ideals. Adam Smith is on the list.
I've no problems with experimenting with various forms of capitalism.
Just because you're a christian doesn't mean you aren't going to Hell. The majority position is that one has to be in a state of grace. Furthermore, ignorance is something of an excuse. A christian who has been catechized and still sins is generally considered to be judged more harshly than a non christian ignorant of God's rules. This is also why Jews do not condemn gentiles for eating pork and muslims do not condemn christians for not doing muslim ablutions.
Better, in the end, not to kill either.
The only problem with that construction is that the subset of the strong can always calve off and prey on the weak, excluding them from their society. Universal ideas like we're all children of God militate against that sort of thing, though obviously not perfectly.
People have been bleating about market externalities for at least 150 years but when the rubber hits the road, all the alternatives are even worse at dealing with externalities. Compare pollution in the Soviet block with the West and the Sovs were clearly much dirtier.
It isn't that capitalism is perfect. It's not, which is why I'm open to alternatives. The problem is that people want to tear down capitalism and not discuss much that the alternatives they are pushing are even worse. That's just a no-go and dishonest to boot.
So what's your alternative?
You may want to keep an eye out for this temperature station monitoring project. Over the next decade they're going to actually do the first world-wide check on urban heat island bias. They're about halfway done with the USA and going international after that effort is complete.
There isn't just problems with one data set, but multiple ones.
The cure isn't to make massive adjustments of dubious efficacy (ie Kyoto). The cure is to create cheap orbital space flight and install a freaking planetary thermostat so that you can influence the raw input (solar radiation reaching the Earth) enough to stabilize temperature no matter how the climate is changing.
That means a planetary shade for when it's warm and mirrors for when it's cold. It's orbital megalithic architecture.
Latency from heat that isn't there?
That's ok, most of the climatologists aren't accounting for them either.
The IPCC puts out reports every four years. 5 months ago we found an entire new ocean current important (among other things) in predicting global climate over time, the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation. That means that all the previous IPCC reports that everybody's got their panties in a bunch over were missing a major factor in their models. Oops. Believe me, it's not the only one.
The models to this point are GIGO and we're supposed to move trillions in resources around on their say so. That's just insane. It's phrenology on a massive scale.
The question isn't whether CO2 causes warming in isolation and never has been. The question is whether increased CO2 causes warming in a complex system where we just plain don't know what all the feedback loops are doing and how they adjust to increased CO2.
If, in the end, the increased wealth that CO2 emissions bring you allows you to clean up practices that are polluting and you save more lives than global warming costs, the emissions are worth it even if the most dire of global warming predictions are true.
There is a great deal of improvement of ecological stress that could be done but we're just not wealthy enough to do it or the areas that are stressed are under political control of such corruption that any money going in mostly gets thrown into foreign secret bank accounts instead of actually improving things. There's nothing technical that stops african agriculture from getting US style yields but they don't because the money isn't there. There's nothing technical stopping the provision of clean water anywhere in the planet. It's just too expensive for our current wealth level.
Growing rich is the only cure for ecological stress absent dictatorial control over reproduction and population reduction at genocidal levels.
I'll take growing rich, thank you.
Funny enough about global temperatures, if you shorten the baseline up to only 10 years, we're actually undergoing a mild bout of global cooling. The last year or two have been especially cool.
Actually, that 'make-believe system' is intended and generally functions quite well if left alone (*CRA* cough) at allocating resources on a more efficient basis than every other system we've ever tried. Inefficient allocation of resources means increased poverty, and at the margin, increased death from same. For us middle-class first worlders a tick up or down isn't a big deal but getting out of grinding subsistence agriculture and moving up the ladder to a merely crappy factory job means the difference between losing one sibling or three in the 3rd world.
Legal rights, ultimately, are based on force. They have no moral position beyond enforcement by the local government. If you agree that all human rights are legal rights than you have zero basis for an international human rights movement where there is no agreement on sharing any sort of legal polity.
Natural rights theorists do not claim to create natural rights, but rather to observe and categorize them. Such rights then have a different moral status than 'you can turn right on red but only after stopping' which is a legal right in many jurisdictions.
I'm reasonably sure that pluripotency in embryonic stem cells is natural. You don't need to induce it in embryonic stem cells. In fact, the major problem with embryonic stem cells is that they're too plastic, which is where the cancer problem comes in and why these cells are generally worthless for actual treatments.
A science embargo like you mention is extremely rare. In fact, the only one I'm aware of is of the Nazi hypothermia experiments. It's not Godwin if the mention is over a unique event that only happened to with regard to something nazi.
The cameras are an obvious place for "my dick is bigger than yours" competition. The resolution will come up in time and so the internal bar code schemes will eventually be resolvable. Smart programmers will set their software up so that adding schemes will be easy and require minimal recoding. Your point on reusing internal numbers is more difficult to overcome.
Eventually, those who make their stores more of a pain than necessary will lose business and ultimately become a problem that solves itself.
So now we've got to have a clean room, reverse engineering process before we're allowed to modify our own cells to treat disease? Do you really want to treat embryonic papers like Nazi science experiments? That's the only modern example of a science embargo like the one you're describing.
Yes, yes, the Pope is not the leader of all christians. We get that. However, in this case, the Pope is adopting the consensus pro-life position. On this issue the protestant reformation shouldn't be a problem.
It's not only the Pope but all of the pro-life religious leadership that's adopted a similar approach. I don't know of one religious faction that fights against adult stem cell research.
I think I'd rather have the steps up front with adult cells from my own body than anti-rejection medication and chemotherapy on the back end, thank you very much.
You should grow a goatee immediately.
Can we have a -1 ignorant mod? Natural rights are well defined and centuries old. You should have heard about them in school.
Yeah, except all the theologians have already combed through this material and have already ruled in obscure little theological journals that it's not a problem. You're late to the party.
How does it feel to be on the trailing edge?
The real fight has between the adult stem cell people and the embryonic stem cell people over how to divvy up the stem cell money. All of those "neanderthals" in the pro-life community that got slapped with the anti-stem cell label were always for adult stem cell research. They just didn't like embryonic research.